A whackjob loser, who happens to be Muslim but whose profile is all too-predictable - failing in his career, failing in his personal life, recently underwent major situational change, is facing a feared life-changing event and goes off the deep-end in a horribly violent manner. Now its 4GW?Originally Posted by slapout9
Lind is pathetic.
Yes, If I am not mistaken it was a Muslim who first confronted Nasan and told him" he had a problem" and also declined his request to be a Religious leader for a Ft. Hood Muslim outreach program! But you don't read much in the press about that.... Tried to find some video but no luck, but I saw it on TV when they interviewed the leaders at the Mosque near Ft. Hood that Nasan attened.
Last edited by slapout9; 11-11-2009 at 06:36 PM. Reason: stuff
I avoid d-n-i for the same reason I've avoided the associated CDI since the 1970s. There's too much shovel work involved with only the weakest hope of finding a pony.
The Moslem engineers and scientists I've worked with over the years were (and are) nothing like this loser.
John Wolfsberger, Jr.
An unruffled person with some useful skills.
Agree on Lind. Just a key indicator is his use of Islamic--an adjective meaning of Islam or related to Islam--as a noun to mean a follower of Islam. The proper word is Muslim or Moslem.
Lind deals increasingly in screed, skewed to support 4GW. He and Walid Phares should get a room.
Slap you are correct on the local mosque official who rejected Hassan as a mosque leader. That is getting drowned out as time goes by.
Tom
We know that war against the recognized establishment by networks, tribes and other "non-state" actors has always existed. But, in spite of reading Lind's defintions several times, I just don't understand how it's "generational."
I think Lind looks at the world wearing 4GW glasses, so everything is interpreted in light of his ideas and definition of 4GW. He goes too far, but just because he goes too far is that to say that he isn't right about some things?
According to law, Major Hasan commited murder. That's the way I see it too. But in Hasan's mind, he was a Soldier of Allah. So, some will see it an act of war against the state by a non-state entity. Or, 4GW as Lind defines it.
"Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper
Stratfor analysis makes for interesting reading
Good point, Rifleman ...
It will be interesting to see what primary defense will be raised. I expect some sort of mental capacity plea will be made, although that seems a hard sell under the UCMJ.According to law, Major Hasan commited murder. That's the way I see it too. But in Hasan's mind, he was a Soldier of Allah. So, some will see it an act of war against the state by a non-state entity.
A very interesting plea would be to plead combatant immunity (Soldier of Allah, etc.). I can think of many reasons why that won't work - which is probably why it has not been pleaded by any of the Gitmo detainees. To my knowledge, none of them has formally claimed GC III protections as an enemy combatant entitled to EPW treatment; except for some rumblings about that by a defense expert witness in the Hamdan trial. A combatant immunity claim under the Hasan facts would be a real case of "first impression".
To make that plea, the defense would have to lay out all of MAJ Hasan's AQ connections (if any). So, a nutjob defense seems most likely.
Regards
Mike
Leaderless Resistance?
I agree with the posts that say, 4GW is used as a catch all that makes it pretty much useless as a theory. A few years back I was researching a paper and ran across a white supremacist goon quoting a COL Ulius Louis Amoss and his theory of leaderless resistance. It was interesting, but off my topic. My understanding of his basic theory is that any network can be infiltrated and subsequently rolled up (e.g. French Paratrooper’s success in Algiers). Amoss’ answer to that dilemma was to do away with the network, believing that the ideology of the resistance could guide their attacks in place of a command structure. I didn’t (and still don’t) see how a resistance movement made up like that would ever defeat a functional central government. And after a few half hearted attempts of finding a copy of Amoss’ writings that weren’t tainted by the aforementioned racist thug, I gave up and moved on. But the number of acts of violence perpetrated against the US, by individuals claiming to be motivated by islam made me come back to it as a possible answer. If their desired end state was not political overthrow, but rather instilling fear in their enemy and achieving their own martyrdom, their actions might not seem hopeless. A thought, I'm not well versed enough in the theory to defend it to far, but was wondering if anyone else had come across it elsewhere?
Two other points:
I’m not sure I’m tracking on the backlash though, how is that defined? Because I don’t see it, but work has been busy so maybe I missed all the stories about angry American vigilantes in Peoria burning mosques. If a few firebrands write articles asking pointed questions or at worst exercise their right to be misinformed blowhards, welcome to the First Amendment folks. Unless of course you think that Islam should be afforded a special status and not be subjected to the same scrutiny that every other religion is placed under. In that case, welcome to dhimmitude.
Finally as adults we should be able to point out his obvious religious motivation with out tarring the entire religion for the actions of an individual or accusing those who dare broach the subject as narrow minded islamophobes. The only motive that matters is the motive of the man pulling the trigger and given the reports that Hassan initiated his shooting spree with shouts of “Allah u akbar”, I’m guessing he wasn’t upset about Brett Farve coming to Lambeau in a Purple jersey and sweeping the Packers. The question of what role his faith played in his actions, directly impacts how the government’s planners could properly employ elements of national power, strategic communications and other non-lethal assets to counter the ideology that wants to destroy our country and way of life.
I inferred this in my (much) earlier post, but Brian Ross has reported tonight on ABC that the Major repeatedly asked that soldiers he was "treating" be charged with war crimes. His "defense", really I would call it another front opened by someone who finds himself as a "soldier of allah", may very well be to put the conduct of American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan on trial. "Why put me to death when I repeatedly tried to report soldiers who expressed to me they killed men, women and children because they were bored?"
His best defense (his best to avoid death) will not be mental capacity, it will be the stories he carries with him, told to him by the very people he was there to "help". Call it 4GW, whatever, but that military courtroom, and the press, will become another battlefield in this war. Using our very own cherished institutions of a right to a fair trial and freedom of speech to wage war upon their very foundations. I worried this could become all kinds of worse, and we're one step closer to that it appears.
Last edited by Boondoggle; 11-17-2009 at 12:01 AM.
Bookmarks